National Evaluation of WEED & EED · Executive Office for Weed & Seed. U.S. Department of Justice...

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E

OF JUSTICE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

IJOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

N a t i o n a l E v a l u a t i o n o f

WEED & SEED

S h r e v e p o r t , L o u i s i a n aResearchReport

Case Study

Executive Office for Weed & Seed

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs810 Seventh Street N.W.Washington, DC 20531

Janet RenoAttorney General

Raymond C. FisherAssociate Attorney General

Laurie RobinsonAssistant Attorney General

Noël BrennanDeputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy TravisDirector, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

National Evaluation of Weed and Seed

ShreveportCase Study

RESEARCH REPORT

Terence Dunworth, Ph.D.Project Director

Gregory MillsDeputy Project Director

Prepared by

Gary CordnerShreveport Site Leader

Cheryl RobertsKristen Jacoby

June 1999

NCJ 175702

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy TravisDirector

Steve EdwardsProgram Monitor

Prepared for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, by Abt Associates Inc.,under contract #95–DD–BX–0134. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those ofthe author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Departmentof Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which alsoincludes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Shreveport Case Study iii

Acknowledgments

This evaluation could not have been completed without the assistance and cooperation of thoseinvolved in the Shreveport Weed and Seed effort. We appreciate their willingness to be open andcandid during the evaluation. We especially would like to thank the Weed and Seed program staff,including Mr. Jim Roberts, Program Director; Ms. Mary Ellen Hoffman, Seed Coordinator; Lieutenant Jackie Lewis, Weed Coordinator; the Weed and Seed officers; and Ms. Angela Tappe. Wewould also like to acknowledge the contributions of the many community representatives andorganizations, the Shreveport Police Department, and staff from the District Attorney’s and U.S.Attorney’s Offices. Special thanks to Ms. Susan Reno, who provided data from the Shreveport PoliceDepartment, and Dr. Sandra Long, the local evaluator.

Shreveport Case Study iv

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.0 Case Study Objective and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

3.0 Site History and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 City Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 Target Area Characteristics and Nature of Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 Other Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

4.0 Program Structure and Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.1 Formal Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.2 Proposed Goals and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.3 Budget Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.4 Information Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104.5 Site Monitoring, Reporting, and Local Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5.0 Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.1 Role of Grantee Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.2 Management Structure and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.3 Local Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.4 Operational Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145.5 Approach to Weeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.6 Approach to Community Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185.7 Approach to Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195.8 Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6.0 Effects of Weed and Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.1 Analysis of Crime Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266.2 Survey of Community Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286.3 Seeding Program Participant Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

7.0 Future Directions and Degree of Institutionalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Shreveport Case Study v

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3.1: Part 1 Crimes per 1,000 Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Exhibit 3.2: Shreveport Weed and Seed Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Exhibit 4.1: Shreveport Weed and Seed Proposed Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Exhibit 5.1: Part 1 Arrests per Capita by Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Exhibit 5.2: Drug Arrests per Capita by Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Exhibit 6.1: Part 1 Crime Data, Shreveport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Exhibit 6.2: Part 1 Crimes per Capita by Month . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Exhibit 6.3: Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Exhibit 6.4: Perceptions of the Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Exhibit 6.5: Victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Exhibit 6.6: Police Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Exhibit 6.7: Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Exhibit 6.8: Perceptions of Social Services and Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Exhibit 6.9: Perceptions of the Weed and Seed Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Shreveport Case Study 1

1.0 Introduction

Unveiled in 1991, Operation Weed and Seed represents an ambitious attempt to improve the qualityof life in America’s cities. The ultimate goals of Weed and Seed are to control violent crime, drugtrafficking, and drug-related crime in targeted high-crime neighborhoods and to provide a safeenvironment, free of crime and drug use, in which law-abiding citizens can live, work, and raise theirfamilies. Weed and Seed, administered by the Executive Office for Weed and Seed (EOWS), isgrounded in the philosophy that targeted areas can best be improved by a two-pronged strategy of“weeding” out violent offenders, drug traffickers, and other criminals by removing them from thetargeted area and “seeding” the area with human services and neighborhood revitalization efforts.Community policing is intended to serve as the “bridge” between weeding and seeding.

Three key objectives emphasize the government-community partnership at the heart of Weed andSeed:

1. To develop a comprehensive, multiagency strategy to control and preventviolent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-related crime in targeted high-crimeneighborhoods.

2. To coordinate and integrate both new and existing Federal, State, local,and private sector initiatives, criminal justice efforts, and human services,concentrating these resources in project sites to maximize their impact onreducing and preventing violent crime, drug trafficking, and drug-relatedcrime.

3. To mobilize community residents in the targeted sites to assist lawenforcement in identifying and removing violent offenders and drug traffickersfrom their neighborhoods and to assist other human services agencies inidentifying and responding to the needs of the target area.

Weed and Seed sites thus draw on the resources of a variety of agencies at all levels of government,private and other public organizations, and individual community residents.

Specific strategies and program components designed to achieve these three objectives fall into one offour Weed and Seed program elements:

1. Law enforcement. Weed and Seed’s law enforcement goals are theidentification, arrest, prosecution, conviction, and incarceration of narcoticstraffickers and violent criminals operating in the target area.

2. Community policing. An objective of community policing is to establishmutual trust between law enforcement and the public. This is the bridgebetween weeding and seeding: law enforcement officials enlist thecommunity’s help to identify patterns of criminal activity and locateperpetrators; simultaneously, police help the community solve problems.

1 Executive Office for Weed and Seed, “Operation Weed and Seed Implementation Manual,” p. 2–1.


3. Prevention, intervention, and treatment. This element of the program isintended to reduce risk factors and to enhance protective factors associatedwith drug abuse, violence, and crime in the target area. Safe havens in thetarget areas typically coordinate prevention, intervention, and treatmentactivities.

4. Neighborhood restoration. The goal of this element is to enable residents inthe target area to improve their community morale, their neighborhood’sphysical appearance (buildings, parks, streets, lighting, and so forth), and localeconomic and business conditions.

An important structural feature of Weed and Seed is the local steering committee. EOWS requireseach site to have a steering committee, formally chaired by the U.S. Attorney for the district in whichthe site is located, that is responsible for “establishing Weed and Seed’s goals and objectives,designing and developing programs, providing guidance on implementation, and assessing programachievement.”1

Steering committee members include representatives from key local, State, and Federal agencies, aswell as other stakeholders in the target area, such as business leaders, tenant association leaders, andcommunity activists. The requirement to convene a steering committee reflects EOWS’s belief that,for neighborhood revitalization to work, all key stakeholders must participate in the decisions thataffect the target area.

Funded sites were divided into officially recognized sites and demonstration sites. Officiallyrecognized sites had implemented Weed and Seed strategies in their jurisdictions, had submitteddocumentation summarizing their strategy to EOWS, but had not yet received full funding. Onceofficially recognized, sites were eligible for demonstration status and full Weed and Seed funding.

2.0 Case Study Objective and Methodology

This case study is one of eight completed for the National Evaluation of Weed and Seed, under thedirection of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). In 1994, NIJ selected the following eight sites forthe national evaluation:

• Hartford, Connecticut; Las Vegas, Nevada; Sarasota and Manatee Counties, Florida;and Shreveport, Louisiana, were demonstration sites that first received funding in FY 1994.

• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Seattle, Washington, were demonstration sites awardedcontinuation funding in FY 1994.

• Akron, Ohio, and Salt Lake City, Utah, were officially recognized sites.

2 The National Performance Review Task Force (now renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government) designated anumber of governmental organizations or activities as National Performance Review Laboratories (now Reinvention Laboratories) totest “reinventing government” initiatives. These labs have developed more efficient ways to deliver government services by creatingnew partnerships between entities, streamlining bureaucratic processes, and empowering organizations to make substantial changes.The mission of the Weed and Seed Reinvention Laboratory is to develop more effective mechanisms that combine and deliver Federal,State, and local resources in Weed and Seed sites.

3 Crime statistics for Shreveport and the target area (exhibit 3.1) were generated from incident-level crime data provided by theShreveport Police Department. Part 1 crimes include violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) and property crimes(burglary, larceny, auto theft).

4 Shreveport 1994 Weed and Seed application, with population data from the 1990 census.


Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and Sarasota/Manatee also received funds from the National PerformanceReview Laboratory (NPRL).2

This case study documents the activities implemented under the Weed and Seed program inShreveport and assesses the program’s impact at this site. The final evaluation report compares theeight sites and presents overall conclusions on the Weed and Seed program.

The evaluation activities undertaken for this case study include: (1) onsite observation of programactivities; (2) inperson interviews with program staff, key law enforcement personnel, communityleaders, service providers, and participants; (3) review of program documents; (4) a survey of targetarea residents; and (5) analysis of computerized crime and arrest records provided by the local policedepartment.

3.0 Site History and Description

3.1 City Characteristics

Shreveport, with a population of 198,525, is the third largest city in Louisiana. The city functions as ametropolitan resource for southwest Arkansas, northeast Texas, and northwest Louisiana. Adepressed economy following the oil bust motivated many residents to leave the Shreveport area,resulting in declining neighborhoods and growing crime rates. Riverboat gambling has recentlyprovided modest economic growth for the city but has not compensated for former business losses.As exhibit 3.1 illustrates, Shreveport’s levels of Part 1 crimes are about double the national average.3

Shreveport was ranked the 15th Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) in the United States for numberof murders, although it ranked 114th in population.4

3.2 Target Area Characteristics and Nature of Problems

The Weed and Seed target area in Shreveport is the contiguous neighborhoods of Highland andStoner Hill. (See exhibit 3.2.) The Highland-Stoner Hill target area covers 5.2 square miles and has anestimated population of 12,668. Interstate 20 (suspected to be one of the major routes for drugtrafficking from Los Angeles) borders the area on its north side, with King’s Highway as the southernboundary.

5 Shreveport 1995 Weed and Seed grant application, City of Shreveport Chamber of Commerce.

6 Shreveport 1994 Weed and Seed grant application, citing 1990 census data.


The Highland-Stoner Hill area is among the oldest neighborhoods in the city, containing two ofShreveport’s historic districts. The community is the most culturally and racially diverse area in thecity. Highland-Stoner Hill has a relatively large number of single-family homes and medical facilities,as well as approximately 550 businesses.5 The area contains two public housing complexes.

The oil and gas production slump that beset both Shreveport and Louisiana has seriously affected theHighland-Stoner Hill area. In 1990, the area’s unemployment rate was more than 50 percent, and percapita income was $8,143—46 percent below the national average. Between 26 and 42 percent offamilies lived below the poverty level, depending on the neighborhood, and between 15 and27 percent of households received public assistance.6 Although there are some owner-occupiedhomes, the physical environment of the area had deteriorated. Property values and home ownershiphad declined, and the number of vacant properties had increased.

7 Shreveport 1994 Weed and Seed grant application.

8 Crime statistics for Shreveport and the target area (exhibit 3.1) were generated from incident-level crime data provided by theShreveport Police Department.



Highland-Stoner Hill has consistently had the largest number of police calls for service andcrimes of any area in the city. From 1987 to 1991, violent crime in the target area increasedby 44 percent; in one 2-year period (September 1990 to August 1992), a total of 446 violentcrimes were reported in the area. The Shreveport Chamber of Commerce identified Highland-Stoner Hill as the areawith the highest business-related crime in the city.7

As shown in exhibit 3.1, in 1994, prior to Weed and Seed, the target area’s violent crime ratewas 57 percent higher than for the rest of the city, and the property crime rate was 72 percenthigher.8 From 1993 to 1994, Part 1 crimes increased by 21 percent in the target areacompared with 9 percent in the rest of the city. Law enforcement officials estimated three-fourths of crime in the target area was due to drug trafficking.9

3.3 Other Funding Sources

Several other externally funded programs besides Weed and Seed have provided services to the targetarea:

� The Community Partnership for a Drug-Free Shreveport, funded through a 5-year grantby the Federal Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention (CSAP), members of whichhave served on the Weed and Seed steering committee.

� The Community Partnership Enrichment Program (CPEP), funded by an NPRLsupplemental grant to provide youth afterschool activities in 1994%95.

� Police Hiring Supplement Funds grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to deployseveral Community Liaison Officers (CLOs), one of whom is responsible for an areathat includes the target neighborhoods.

� Federal funds to establish a Drug Court.

� A grant from the Pew Charitable Trust to train community leaders.



4.0 Program Structure and Chronology

4.1 Formal Organizational Structure

In 1992, a group of Federal, State, and city officials and community leaders initiated the ShreveportWeed and Seed project and, in January 1993, Shreveport was officially recognized as a Weed andSeed community.10 In October 1994, Shreveport became a fully funded demonstration site. Theoriginal grantee, the Shreveport Police Department, changed to the mayor’s office, and then revertedback to the police department during the first year of the project.

Shreveport’s Weed and Seed organizational structure is composed of the steering committee, anexecutive committee, a Weed and Seed program director, a weed coordinator, a seed coordinator, aweed committee, and two seed committees.

The steering committee, which meets monthly, has been as large as 30 members but currently has14 members that include representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office; Drug EnforcementAdministration (DEA); Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF); Shreveport PoliceDepartment (SPD); and the City of Shreveport. Other organizations represented include the CaddoParish District Attorney’s office, Stoner Hill Neighborhood Action Group, Highland AreaPartnership, Highland Restoration Association, Wilkinson Terrace Residential Council, SchumpertFoundations, and Chamber of Commerce. A resident from each target neighborhood serves on thecommittee.

In addition to this overall steering committee, a five-member executive committee providesimmediate decisionmaking as needed between steering committee meetings. The executive committeeincludes representatives from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the police department, the mayor’s office, aStoner Hill community leader, and the seed coordinator.

Until 1997, there was significant turnover in staff, which delayed seeding program implementation.The original seed coordinator was replaced during the first year of the project. She performed her seedcoordinator duties as a volunteer while she ran the afterschool programs funded by Weed and Seed.She found it difficult to manage the administrative requirements of both positions and to workeffectively with the school systems, where the afterschool programs were housed. The seedcoordinator who replaced her has been effective in this position; she was hired to work on a full-timebasis and had extensive experience with community organizations.

The first two program directors hired by the steering committee also had to be replaced. Both seemedto have good credentials on paper but lacked grants management experience, which proved to be acritical aspect of program management. The first program director found it difficult to deal with thecity’s fiscal and management systems. The second program director also had conflicts with otherWeed and Seed staff. The assistant to the chief of police stepped in to serve as acting program directorduring the staff changes in that position and retained that post from early 1997 to February 1998,during which time leadership was strong. In February 1998, the area captain responsible for the Weed


and Seed target area was assigned to direct the program. This was seen as a way to integrate the Weedand Seed program into the normal operations and structure of the department, instead of running it asa special program out of the chief’s office.

The key staff positions in the Weed and Seed program are currently filled as follows:

� Program director&staffed by the area captain assigned to the Weed and Seed targetarea.

� Weed coordinator&a full-time position staffed by a police lieutenant, whose salary ispaid by the police department.

� Seed coordinator&a full-time position, paid by the Weed and Seed grant.

� Administrative assistant&a full-time position, paid by the Weed and Seed grant.

4.2 Proposed Goals and Strategies

In 1994, the city of Shreveport applied for and received $750,000 in Weed and Seed funds (includingAsset Forfeiture moneys), having outlined the following goals and strategies in its application:

Law enforcement:

� Increase law enforcement presence by increasing personnel deployed in the target area.

� Reduce drug trafficking through coordinated arrest and prosecution efforts.

� Target repeat offenders for removal from the target area.

� Reduce weapons violations through directed patrols and Project Triggerlock.

� Reduce gang influence through targeted enforcement.

The law enforcement strategy was developed through a partnership consisting of the ShreveportPolice Department, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Caddo Parish District Attorney, DEA, and ATF.

Community policing:

� Involve the community in targeting problems through joint activities with the police.

� Establish a community liaison officer position assigned to the target area.

� Establish a mobile crime prevention education unit and information center.


� Establish a Neighbor Assistance Team Office (a community relations division of thecommunity policing program) at Wilkinson Terrace to provide a direct link with Federalhousing tenants.

� Increase police personhours by providing additional patrols of the target area.

A key component of the community policing strategies was expansion of two unique localprograms&the Neighborhood Assistance Team and the community liaison officers.

Prevention/intervention/treatment:

• Establish safe havens at three neighborhood schools and involve youths in planningfuture projects at safe haven sites.

• Increase substance abuse and law-related education with specific curricular programs.

• Establish a community clearinghouse for treatment information at the CommunityInvolvement Center.

Neighborhood restoration:

• Increase code enforcement by assigning an additional code enforcement officerdedicated to the target area.

• Enhance neighborhood relations through Community Involvement Center usage,special events, and so forth.

• Enhance the target area’s image to attract new families and businesses.

• Attract economic development (private sector) through coordination of economicdevelopment and employment efforts.

Shreveport’s second-year application (for 1995–96) included several new or refined goals. In the lawenforcement component of the grant, Shreveport intended to increase the bicycle patrol in bothnumbers and area covered. Community policing goals included increasing the number ofneighborhood watch groups and revitalizing existing programs, incorporating a communicationssystem to address specific problems and concerns of the business community, and enhancingcommunity education programs to increase awareness of different police services. The seedingcomponent would continue to focus on the safe havens and developing recreational and educationalprograms for area youths, including substance abuse and violence prevention. A new goal forneighborhood restoration was to collaborate with the court system to arrange for people sentenced tocommunity service to work in the target area.

Shreveport’s third-year application (for 1996–97) outlined enhancements and modifications to thedifferent program components. The Shreveport Police Department intended to strengthen partnershipswith the community by establishing a Community Action Team to identify problems, solutions, andrecommendations, while continuing and expanding community oriented policing projects in the Weed


and Seed site. The department also wanted to include a centralized educational component to provideinformation and training on issues such as law enforcement, crime prevention, community orientedpolicing, drug awareness, and/or juvenile justice. The department’s final goal was to reduce by 10percent those crimes caused by and associated with active drug markets, gang activities, and repeatoffenders. Goals of the neighborhood restoration element included increased and targeted codeenforcement by dividing the target area into manageable areas and empowering residents to takeaction; solving three major neighborhood restoration problems through better coordination with city,State, and private agencies; and supporting two new economic development projects to demonstratethat the Highland-Stoner Hill area is a desirable place in which to live and work.

4.3 Budget Information

Exhibit 4.1 displays the site’s annual grant awards and budget allocations as set forth in its grantapplications. Due to delays in program implementation, the program did not spend all of its fundsawarded in the first year (1994–95). The program used carryover funds for FY 1997 and applied forits fourth year funding in FY 1998. In general, weeding has commanded the largest share of thebudget, with seeding close behind. Community policing receives almost half as much as the otheroperations. The Asset Forfeiture funds have been spent on special law enforcement training,operations, and equipment, such as a mobile police substation.

On the seeding side, in FY 1997–98, most of the funds were allocated to the safe havens, including$81,634 for Youth Enrichment Plus, an afterschool program at three elementary schools; $29,205 forShreveport Community Renewal Kids Club, for afterschool and summer activities; and $20,000 forthe Salvation Army, for an afterschool and summer program.

In FY 1996, Weed and Seed received inkind donations of supplies and equipment, such as policebicycles, from resident associations and businesses, worth approximately $8,000.

4.4 Information Systems

The police officers assigned to weeding and community policing duties within the Weed and Seedtarget area have developed their own crime analysis capacity to support deployment decisions andtactical planning. They have obtained crime and call-for-service data from headquarters and havecreated their own customized data bases.

4.5 Site Monitoring, Reporting, and Local Evaluation

Staff members in the Weed and Seed office, including the weed coordinator, the seed coordinator, anadministrative assistant, and a receptionist, maintain extensive records on project activities; suchrecords include numbers of phone calls and visits to the Weed and Seed office, committee meetingattendance and minutes, numbers of participants in various programs offered through Weed and Seed,and a complete set of newspaper clippings and related publicity materials. These records andmaterials are used to compile the required periodic reports to the Executive Office for Weed andSeed.


Exhibit 4.1Shreveport Weed and Seed Proposed Budget

FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997

TOTAL $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 0 (deferredto 1998)*

WEEDING TOTAL $285,580 $253,750 $250,000Enforcement overtime $34,866 $69,368 $58,000

Training $20,000 $20,000 $12,000

Robbery/homicide investigation $19,240 0 0

Enforcement equipment $134,417 $134,382 $172,000

Evidence/informant purchases $5,000 $30,000 $8,000

District Attorney’s office (funding declined by D.A.) $72,057 0 0

COMMUNITY POLICING TOTAL $142,703 $92,473 $96,200Patrol Division overtime $117,703 $92,473 $96,200

Patrol Division equipment $25,000 0 0

SEEDING TOTAL $240,000 $158,645 $214,935Safe havens/youth afterschool and summer programming

$195,000 $84,884 $142,000

Other seeding programs $20,000 $12,575 $2,000

Patrol overtime for monitoring cleanups 0 0 $14,600

Code enforcement officer $25,000 $30,000 $25,000

Seed coordinator 0 $31,186 $31,135

OTHER TOTALS $81,717 $245,132 $188,812Weed and Seed project director (with benefits) $34,500 $41,813 $38,703

Weed and Seed administrative assistant (with benefits) $18,400 $20,581 $20,749

Weed and Seed receptionist (with benefits) 0 $18,038 $18,160

Travel 0 $7,000 0

Weed and Seed supplies $8,817 $33,200 $16,500

Weed and Seed training (includes travel) $5,000 $20,000 $20,000

Weed and Seed office rent $5,000 $13,200 0

Other costs 0 $53,800 $37,200

Local evaluation $10,000 $37,500 $37,500

Source: Compiled from Weed and Seed grant applications; includes $250,000 per year in Asset Forfeiture funding.*Note: In FY 1997 the site used funds remaining from prior years due to the delayed program implementation.

EOWS authorized postponing the FY 1997 cycle of funding to FY 1998.

11 In Shreveport, the first evaluation firm was dismissed because it could not recognize and diagnose significant initial implementationproblems: the evaluator painted a false rosy picture instead of providing constructive analysis and feedback.


Program staff noted they had to set up special accounting procedures for Federal reporting on eachyear’s grant because the city, which processed the grant, did not have a system in place to track thegrants according to Federal requirements. This was a significant undertaking, and staff advised othergrantees to plan ahead in setting up the local accounting system.

The principal issue of concern to Shreveport officials in terms of their relationship to the fundingagency was the delay in authorization to hire a local evaluator. Apparently, EOWS urged grantees todelay contracting for local evaluations until the national Weed and Seed evaluation was underway. Asa result, the Shreveport program was 21 months old before the present local evaluator was hired.11

The program director feels better decisions could have been made, especially on the seeding side, ifprocess evaluation information had been available sooner.

Shreveport officials have been pleased with the performance of their local evaluation firm, BehavioralAnalysis. Not only is the principal evaluator familiar with the target area, she had already provided anevaluation of the Community Partnership Enrichment Program, which was affiliated with Weed andSeed during its first year in Shreveport. The evaluation has relied primarily on interviews with projectparticipants and a community mail survey. The evaluator incorporated the risk-factors strategicapproach, from the Communities That Care model, into the evaluation criteria. The local evaluationhas provided assessments to Weed and Seed staff on a quarterly basis as well as an overall evaluationreport. Evaluation staff also helped Weed and Seed staff review and assess proposed new seedingprograms.

Shreveport was one of the few sites among the eight national evaluation sites that conducted anindependent local evaluation.

5.0 Key Implementation Issues and Interpretation

5.1 Role of Grantee Organization

Shreveport has been a fully funded demonstration site since its initial Weed and Seed grant award in1994. The city was also an NPRL site but decided to drop out of the NPRL program and declinefunding when it was unable to obtain adequate NPRL program guidelines.

Although the Shreveport Police Department was the original grantee on the application, the programwas intended to be housed in the mayor’s office. By the time the grant was awarded, however, amayoral change had taken place, and the new administration assigned the program to the policedepartment. Early in the first year of the Weed and Seed grant, after the staff had been hired, themayor’s office decided to run the program and move it back to the mayor’s office. The new mayoralstaff were not very experienced with grants, however. In light of the problems encountered with theoriginal program director and seeding coordinator, EOWS advised Shreveport officials to return theprogram to the police department, which they did.


The administrative shift to the police department helps explain why weeding activities in Shreveportgot off to a quicker start than seeding activities; however, the most important explanation for the slowstart on seeding was the unsatisfactory performance of the original program director and seedingcoordinator (discussed in section 4.1). After these staff members were replaced, seeding activityincreased dramatically due to the effective coordination and oversight the new staff brought to theprogram.

On one hand, project personnel feel the police department is not the most desirable home for a Weedand Seed project, despite the improved seeding performance since 1996. They believe the policedepartment is not set up to handle social services programs and that Weed and Seed has a betterchance to be institutionalized if it is centrally based in city government. Program staff think theproject ideally should be based out of the mayor’s office or under an independent commission, withweeding activity subcontracted to the police department and seeding handled by the city’s communityservices office.

On the other hand, the police department provided strong leadership and oversight to the project,particularly under the helm of the most recent program director, who is also the administrativeassistant to the chief of police. Furthermore, with the present arrangement, weeding and seedingoperations are housed together at a central Weed and Seed program office, allowing for strongerprogram integration. So while the mayor’s office may be the more natural home for the program,there are practical local factors that made the police department more effective in the short-term.

5.2 Management Structure and Control

Decisionmaking authority and accountability

During the project’s first year, decisionmaking authority and accountability were vague and diffuse,due in part to the inexperience and ineffectiveness of the initial program director and seedingcoordinator. In addition, the 30-member steering committee was too large and inexperienced. As aresult, fairly straightforward police weeding activities were implemented successfully, but seedingactivities were initially few and unfocused. Finally, the original impetus for Shreveport’s participationin Weed and Seed came largely from the U.S. Attorney, but he shifted the responsibility forimplementation to the city and never became fully engaged in the program’s operations.

Since its second year, the project has operated more smoothly and with more accountability. Thecurrent program director has provided both direction and close supervision. The new seedingcoordinator, who already had close ties to social service providers in the area, has developed a goodworking relationship with both the program director and the weeding coordinator.

The steering committee has generally become more effective as it has been restructured, reduced insize, and complemented with an executive committee and separate weeding and seedingsubcommittees. One problem that has developed, however, is some steering committee membersfrequently send their alternates to meetings. This devalues the meetings and the project, and ithampers decisionmaking on major issues because the alternates lack authority to commit theiragencies to new policies or programs.


Six of the 14 steering committee members are neighborhood residents or representatives ofcommunity organizations, and two others represent nongovernmental organizations (the Chamber ofCommerce and a major foundation based in the target area). As a result, government officials are inthe minority on the committee. Perhaps because of this structural condition, decisions made by thesteering committee seem to have benefitted from substantial community input. Law enforcement andprosecution concerns have not dominated the committee’s decisions.

5.3 Local Politics

Local politics have disrupted and constrained Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program in three ways:

• The initial placement of the Weed and Seed program in the mayor’s office wasunsuccessful, at least in part, because local elections diverted attention from the program;then, after the elections, the city administration changed. It was not until the program wastransferred to the police department that accountability and decisionmaking authoritywere established and implemented.

• The local school board also changed during this time, affecting the implementation ofschool-based safe havens.

• Local politics has interfered with the prosecution of Weed and Seed cases in local andState courts. The district attorney, an elected official, has taken the position that it wouldbe politically inappropriate for his office to target any one geographic area. This decision,combined with the total absence of any Federal Weed and Seed prosecutions, hasseriously undermined weeding efforts in Shreveport.

5.4 Operational Goals

A reasonable degree of synergy between weeding and seeding goals seems to have been achieved inShreveport due to three primary factors:

• Weeding and seeding staff have operated out of the same facility almost since thebeginning of the program, permitting familiarity and trust to develop.

• From the program’s beginning, weeding staff initiated a bicycle patrol, with distinctiveinformal attire (yellow shirts). As a result, although they have focused primarily onenforcement, they have also built some of the community policing bridge envisionedbetween weeding and seeding.

• The Communities That Care strategic planning process helped provide a clear focus forWeed and Seed planning and programming, especially on the seeding side, according toproject staff. A total of 70 people participated in a 3-day process that identified severalkey community issues and risk factors. Additional meetings were held to narrow thefocus even further. Subsequently, EOWS proposals were oriented around these issues andrisk factors, as were subcontract requests for proposals (RFPs). Although this entire


process proved to be rather time-consuming, it built consensus and strengthened programcoherence.

Weeding program coherence has been aided by widespread recognition, among staff and thecommunity, that drug use and violence had gotten out of hand in some neighborhoods within thetarget area and needed to be addressed, while seeding program coherence was aided by policerecognition that youth programs, especially afterschool and summer activities, were sorely needed inthe area.

5.5 Approach to Weeding

The weeding officers in Shreveport’s target area have developed effective relationships with severalother units in the police department, including the Neighborhood Assistance Team, CommunityLiaison Officers, the Narcotics Division, and the city detectives. Basically, the weeding officers havebecome the community policing “geographic specialists” who are more familiar with residents,suspects, and neighborhood problems in the target area than anyone else in the police department.

Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program did not begin with a major crime sweep or crackdown, as insome other cities, but rather with the permanent assignment of a small number of additional officersto the target area. The number of weeding officers has varied between two and four during the life ofthe project, in addition to a lieutenant who serves as the weeding coordinator.

The weeding officers work primarily during daylight hours, patrol in pairs, wear distinctive uniformswith bright yellow shirts, and frequently ride bicycles. They focus their activities within the targetarea based on community response, their own observations, and crime analyses conducted bymembers of the unit, which combines official data obtained from headquarters with project-levelinformation gathered by the officers and entered into desktop computer data bases. The output of thiscrime analysis activity now includes computer maps, as well as charts, lists, and bulletins.

Weeding initially targeted burglaries, crack houses, and gun-related incidents. The area has alongstanding daytime burglary problem that resurfaces periodically; weeding officers primarily usebicycle patrol and informants to address the problem, as well as truancy enforcement. Drug problemscontinue, but the unit has been successful in closing down several crack houses with assistance fromthe Narcotics Division. Gun-related calls have also decreased. At one time the area averaged almosttwo per day—often, these were associated with activities in and around crack houses.

During the first 2 years of Weed and Seed, from February 1995 through January 1997, arrests for Part1 crimes increased by an average of 11 percent over the previous 2 years, and drug arrests increasedby an average of 48 percent. Exhibit 5.1 shows arrests for Part 1 crimes per capita by month,indicating continuously climbing arrest levels through Weed and Seed’s second year (a total of 307arrests versus 271 the year prior to Weed and Seed). Exhibit 5.2 shows drug-related arrests per capitaby month, with drug arrests peaking in the first year of Weed and Seed at 155 arrests compared with95 arrests the previous year.


Exhibit 5.1Part 1 Arrests per Capita by Month

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Jan-

93

Mar

-93

May

-93

Jul-9

3

Sep

-93

Nov

-93

Jan-

94

Mar

-94

May

-94

Jul-9

4

Sep

-94

Nov

-94

Jan-

95

Mar

-95

May

-95

Jul-9

5

Sep

-95

Nov

-95

Jan-

96

Mar

-96

May

-96

Jul-9

6

Sep

-96

Nov

-96

Jan-

97

Mar

-97

May

-97

Jul-9

7

Arr

ests

per

1,0

00 R

esid

ents

Target Area

Rest of CityWeed and Seed Begins

Exhibit 5.2Drug Arrests per Capita by Month

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Jan-

93

Mar

-93

May

-93

Jul-9

3

Sep

-93

Nov

-93

Jan-

94

Mar

-94

May

-94

Jul-9

4

Sep

-94

Nov

-94

Jan-

95

Mar

-95

May

-95

Jul-9

5

Sep

-95

Nov

-95

Jan-

96

Mar

-96

May

-96

Jul-9

6

Sep

-96

Nov

-96

Jan-

97

Mar

-97

May

-97

Jul-9

7

Arr

ests

per

1,0

00 R

esid

ents

Target Area

Rest of CityWeed and Seed Begins


The most sustained crackdown carried out in the target area was during the summer of 1995, whenthe Narcotics Division worked closely with weeding officers to target street corners and drug houseswith informants, surveillance, zero tolerance, and saturation patrol. As a result, drug activity wassignificantly reduced in the area. Since that time, weeding officers have maintained close workingrelationships with the Narcotics Division, in part because (unlike most patrol officers) the weedingofficers have informants who provide accurate and timely information. The weeding officersfrequently engage in joint tactical operations with Federal law enforcement agencies and haveestablished effective relationships with the DEA, ATF, and the U.S. Marshal’s Service. The weedingstaff have also been deputized as U.S. Marshals to facilitate their involvement in these joint tacticaloperations.

More recently, weeding efforts have shifted emphasis toward “quality-of-life issues” such as noise,public drinking, loitering, and truancy, to which weeding officers espouse a zero-tolerance approach.The weeding officers have also adopted the use of checkpoints in some instances to assert controlover problematic locations, and they have addressed drug houses through such techniques as trafficenforcement and parking enforcement to deter customers and code enforcement to pressure adwelling’s occupants or owners.

A substantial amount of Shreveport’s Weed and Seed grant funding has been allocated to policeovertime. These funds have generally been used to provide directed and tactical patrols in the targetarea in the evenings and at night, after the weeding officers have gone off duty. The weeding officersdo not interact much with these overtime patrols, but they credit them with maintaining the weedingofficers’ gains. At times during the course of the project, overtime funding has become depleted,resulting in a lack of after-hours coverage. During these periods, the weeding officers have felt thatconditions began to deteriorate, due either to temporal displacement or inadequate around-the-clockpressure on street-level crime and disorder. With Weed and Seed and police department funds, thedepartment acquired a 38-foot mobile police command center for deployment to different problemareas.

Project staff reported that while crime is down, calls for service are up as a result of the community’sgreater familiarity with, and confidence in, the police due to the weeding officers’ efforts. (Seesection 6.1 for a discussion of crime data.)

Prosecution

Neither Federal prosecutions nor targeted local prosecutions have resulted from Shreveport’s Weedand Seed program. Although the original impetus for the city’s Weed and Seed proposal came fromthe U.S. Attorney, no Federal prosecutions have been initiated, and there has been little substantialcontact between weeding staff and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The few cases referred for Federalprosecution have either been declined or merely used as leverage to obtain further information fromthe suspect. The police department originally thought the criteria for Federal drug prosecutions (100grams of crack cocaine or 2 kilos of powder cocaine) would be relaxed for Weed and Seed cases, butthis did not occur. The U.S. Attorney resisted any lowering of the criteria on grounds of principle, aswell as to prevent the district’s sole Federal judge from becoming overwhelmed with less serious drugcases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office takes the view that the kinds of cases being developed belong inState court.


Although Weed and Seed cases are specially stamped, local Weed and Seed prosecutions have beenhandled routinely, without any fast-tracking, vertical prosecution, or other special attention.Typically, this results in a plea bargain, with a sentence of probation. Local prosecutions have beenhampered by inexperienced assistant district attorneys, crowded court dockets, and a preponderantuse of probation, even for offenders already on probation, according to weeding officers. The generallack of effective prosecution and sentencing has frustrated weeding officers and was mentioned byseveral seeding providers and area residents as a major weakness of the program.

The district attorney’s office takes the view that it does not have the resources to provide any extraeffort for Weed and Seed cases and argues that it would be unfair to give undue attention to one areaof the city or parish at the expense of another. The district attorney also points out inasmuch as Weedand Seed is a Federal program, and one that was initially pushed in Shreveport by the U.S. Attorney,more Federal prosecutions would seem to be appropriate.

The district attorney’s unwillingness to devote any special attention to Weed and Seed cases mayhave been affected by the absence of any major grant funding for his office. Apparently, the districtattorney’s office was initially offered some grant money but declined to accept it, concluding theoffice would still lack sufficient resources to make the necessary prosecutorial and administrativechanges needed to emphasize Weed and Seed cases. (Additional resources for prosecution wouldseem to be a reasonable consideration for this common shortcoming of enforcement-orientedprograms that enhance police efforts on the front end but fail to support agencies that must processthe increased arrests.)

To compensate for the overuse of probation, the weed team meets monthly with the Stateprobation/parole office to catch people in violation of parole; each meeting results in several arrests,which leads to mandatory sentencing. The Weed and Seed steering committee, not including the U.S.Attorney, eventually wrote letters to district judges expressing the community’s concern about theprobation problem; the letters were received positively by the majority of judges, and several metwith the steering committee to discuss this and related issues. In addition, a Drug Court was recentlycreated in Shreveport, which may result in a more systematic approach to the prosecution andsentencing of drug cases, including those initiated from the Weed and Seed program.

5.6 Approach to Community Policing

Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program complemented community policing from the outset, sinceweeding officers were permanently assigned to the target area, patrolled primarily on bicycles, andquickly saw the necessity of getting to know neighborhood residents. Also, since they were co-located with seeding staff in the Weed and Seed office, they developed some familiarity with localservice providers, neighborhood associations, and so forth.

Apart from Weed and Seed, the Shreveport Police Department’s approach to community policingrelied primarily on Community Liaison Officers and Neighborhood Assistance Teams. Each CLOhandles a fairly large beat-sized area, providing community relations and problem-solving services aswell as performing regular patrol duties. The NAT program focuses more specifically on improvingpolice-community relations and is staffed by nonsworn coordinators. NAT activities typically includeyouth activities and prevention-oriented education.


The weeding officers’ efforts seem to have represented the department’s most systematic foray intocommunity policing, especially as of early 1995, when the Weed and Seed program started. Notsurprisingly, the officers have become popular in the target area, and their efforts have been widelyappreciated. The officers are frequently asked to speak at public events. The officers have workedclosely with neighborhood watch groups (attending meetings, offering advice and support) andhelped form groups where none existed. They have also worked closely with the code enforcementofficer to address various types of problems. The police sometimes escort the code enforcementofficer to a dangerous location or use a code enforcement violation as a means of catching suspectedcriminals; the code enforcement officer likewise alerts police to suspicious areas. Residents who werequestioned frequently expressed appreciation for the bicycle patrol and other weeding efforts to solveand deter crime problems in their neighborhoods. One resident, who lived on a block infested withdrug dealers and burglars, said he worked closely with the weed patrol to build a solid case againstthe criminals; now his block is safe, well maintained, and attracting new residents.

Like many cities, Shreveport faces the question of how to replicate its target-area community policingeffort citywide. Other neighborhoods have already clamored for bicycle patrols and a similar level ofattention, but the police department does not feel it has the resources to make a similar investmentthroughout the city. With overly large beats, the CLO approach may be too diffuse to have acomparable impact, however, and the NAT approach is more seeding than weeding. The ShreveportWeed and Seed experience seems to demonstrate that communities benefit more from permanentlyassigned generalist police officers responsible for a whole range of problems and police duties thanfrom any overlay of specialized community relations or problem-solving officers, just as schoolsseem to benefit more from full-fledged school resource officers than from mere Officer Friendly ordrug education programs.

It should also be noted that Shreveport’s Weed and Seed efforts represent a relatively modest step inthe direction of full-scale community policing. Although the use of permanent assignment, reorientedoperations, and positive interaction are characteristic of community policing, the weeding officers donot seem to have embraced as thoroughly such other central elements of community policing asproblem solving, using all available resources to solve problems, and delegating responsibility forproblem solving to line officers. Similarly, the weeding officers apparently have not integrated theregular patrol officers who cover the target area, as might have been hoped. In short, while theweeding officers’ efforts have been commendable, the community policing bridge has been onlypartly constructed.

5.7 Approach to Seeding

The widespread perception among service providers and neighborhood activists is that the Weed andSeed program provided a much-needed focus on the target area and a coordinating and organizingfunction for programs and services. Consequently, previously unavailable services have beenprovided, and existing services are better coordinated and enhanced. Also, communication amongagencies and individuals active in the target area has improved.

A major seeding focus has been on youth activities, including safe havens, afterschool programs, andsummer programs, as the needs assessment and risk factors analysis made youth activities the toppriority. After a bumpy start, the three elementary schools located within the target area have becomefull participants in these activities, as well as such groups as Shreveport Community Renewal and the


Salvation Army. (See detailed descriptions of each program and provider interviews at the end of thissection.)

Another aspect of the seeding effort has been to bring needed services into the target area. Theseefforts include the Shreve Memorial Library Bookmobile (which added the target area to its route atWeed and Seed’s request), the Mobile Learning Lab, and the Shreveport Juvenile Justice Program.One of the most recent Weed and Seed collaborations is the Children’s Advocacy Center for childabuse investigation and programs, which will open in the target area. This multijurisdictional facilitywas brought about through an agreement with 36 different agencies; Weed and Seed helped bring theparties together.

Numerous opportunities have been created for area residents to take advantage of existing programsand services through the Weed and Seed office at the Highland Center, including free immunizationsfrom Shots for Tots. Weed and Seed publicizes such activities in its monthly calendar newsletter andthrough the media; Weed and Seed staff make effective use of the police department public relationsoffice to publicize Weed and Seed activities and special target area events. Publicity andcommunication have been instrumental components of their efforts.

Seeding has also focused attention on neighborhood revitalization within the target area. Weed andSeed organized numerous neighborhood cleanups, gaining participation from communityorganizations (such as Shrevecorps), business associations, residents, and prison inmate workers.Weed and Seed linked Habitat for Humanity with qualified target area residents by providingmarketing support and office space. In total, there have been 11 homes constructed in the target area.

Code enforcement has been one of the most consistent and ongoing revitalization efforts. Since itsinception, Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program has funded a code enforcement officer toconcentrate his attention within the target area. As a result, such issues as overgrown weeds,abandoned and junk cars, abandoned houses, faulty drainage, and unsafe structures have beentargeted much more extensively. The code enforcement officer attends community meetings andworks closely with neighborhood groups, Weed and Seed staff, and the police in targeting his efforts.

Operational relationships with other organizations

After a slow and rocky start, Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program has developed good workingrelationships with important seeding organizations in the city and the target area. Initially, efforts toestablish safe havens within three elementary schools fell apart due to poor communication andfailure to pay teachers for their services in a timely manner. (As discussed, the original seedcoordinator was a volunteer who also ran the safe havens.) This led to a mutual consent among Weedand Seed staff, the Caddo Parish School Board, Youth Enrichment programs, and the U.S. Attorney’sOffice to halt program activities.

Since the appointment of the current, full-time seed coordinator, relationships have improved. Theseed coordinator herself participates in a variety of community activities, such as school improvementcouncils, a children’s advocacy center, a business corridor association, the citizens’ police academy, aneighborhood association, the symphony orchestra outreach committee, and the Pew Charitable Trusttask force. The seed coordinator was honored for “demonstrating outstanding service to thecommunity” by the Caddo Community Action Agency.


Seeding program descriptions and provider interviews

Below is a description of the various seeding programs, including those funded by Weed and Seed toprovide contracted services and those who partner with Weed and Seed for various services andprojects. Eight current program partners were interviewed in person, mostly in a group, and oneformer provider was interviewed by telephone; their comments are included with the descriptions oftheir programs. Some of them also shared their perceptions of Weed and Seed and its effects; thesecomments are included at the end of this section.

Providers contracted by Weed and Seed

The following organizations are contracted by Weed and Seed to provide seeding programs in thetarget area in the current fiscal year, 1997–98.

Youth Enrichment Plus (YEP)1997–98 funding: $81,634

YEP has received Weed and Seed funding since January 1996. The Weed and Seed funding allowedYEP to operate free afterschool programs at three local elementary schools. Participants are in thefirst through third grades. YEP could not have set up those sites without the funding.

As a result of Weed and Seed, YEP has served more than 100 children each semester. The YEPsummer camp, also funded by Weed and Seed, served 60 children last summer. Because of the Weedand Seed summer camp curriculum, several children caught up academically and were not held back agrade as the principal had intended.

According to the YEP director, test scores and school records generally show marked improvementfor YEP students, and their behavior improves as they do better in school. Because the intervention istargeted to the critical age when reading skills are acquired, the director felt improving the students’reading skills would affect them the rest of their lives. They would perform better in school andwould not be held back.

Now that she has a proven program, the director felt confident she would receive funding to continuethe programs after Weed and Seed funding ends.


Shreveport Community Renewal (SCR)1997–98 funding: $29,205

Weed and Seed enabled SCR to open a site in Highland and saved them a year of fund raising. Weedand Seed funded most of the expenses of the day-to-day program. SCR Kids Club is a safe havenprogram for children. SCR purchases a “Friendship House” in an at-risk neighborhood and offersafterschool and weekend programs for children. The youth leader and her family live in the home andare available to participating children in the neighborhood.

The youth leader assists the children with homework and deals with moral and behavioral issues. Shealso organizes weekend activities, including volunteer work. Her goal is to create a continuum of carefor each child in the program so they are cared for by the same people at church, home, school, andKids Club. The youth leader works with the schools, and teachers call to tell her if one of her childrenmisbehaves in class. She said it is difficult to involve the parents of these at-risk children. At the firstparents’ orientation meeting, no parents came, but at the last meeting, more than 60 parents attended;because the children enjoy it so much, they make their parents come, according to the youth leader.She said many children who once had behavioral problems no longer act out.

The Salvation Army1997–98 funding: $20,000

The Salvation Army uses Weed and Seed funding to provide afterschool and summer programs foryouths, ages 5 to 14, in the target area. Twenty-five to fifty youngsters in need of supervision andenrichment are selected with the coordination of local schools. The program focuses on homework,recreation, and conflict resolution skills.

Shreveport Juvenile Justice Prevention Program1997–98 funding: $6,000

Weed and Seed provides funding for teaching materials for this weekly course on violence and crimeprevention for 60 fifth-grade students. During an observation visit, the teacher taught a class sessionabout feelings, recognizing and controlling anger, and learning how to express feelingsconstructively. The class consisted of learning disabled students with behavioral problems; asconflicts erupted in class, the students had ample material with which to practice the lessons anddemonstrate learning.

Providers formerly contracted by Weed and Seed

The following provider was contracted by Weed and Seed to provide services in previous years.

North Louisiana Teamworks (NLT)

Weed and Seed helped fund the North Louisiana Teamworks (NLT) 1996 and 1997 summer track-and-field and literacy program in the target area; because of Weed and Seed funding, services wereextended to youths in Highland and Stoner Hill. The program provided at-risk children of the targetarea neighborhoods a summer program that taught violence prevention, conflict mediation, andliteracy skills. The NLT director felt that the children were provided with positive role models andliteracy rates improved. In total, the program served approximately 500 children last summer.


Approximately 5 percent of NLT’s funding came from Weed and Seed, according to the NLTdirector. Since it is no longer funded by Weed and Seed, NLT has aggressively sought additionalfunding; it has been successful in replacing most of that funding, even though its fundraising seasonis not yet completed.

Weed and Seed partnerships (nonfunded)

Weed and Seed works with many nonprofit and public organizations, which are not funded by Weedand Seed, to provide more services and programs for the target area. Weed and Seed helps coordinatethe activities of such organizations in the target area, solicit their participation in projects, andpublicize these events and services. Weed and Seed has a strong capacity for public outreach due toits location at a community center (Highland Center), its full-time staff, the relationships andprograms it has established in the community, and its effective use of media. Such outreach benefitstarget both area residents and participating organizations. Program partnerships include:

Shots for Tots, Louisiana State Department of Public Health

At the request of Weed and Seed, the state department of public health brought its Shots for Tots freeimmunization program to the target area. The Shots for Tots mobile unit provides services at theWeed and Seed office at the Highland Center, and Weed and Seed publicizes their visits.

Shreve Memorial Library Bookmobile

Weed and Seed arranged for the bookmobile to come to the Highland Center each month becausethere is no permanent public library in the neighborhood and promoting reading is an important partof the Weed and Seed youth and crime prevention strategy. Weed and Seed publicizes thebookmobile’s scheduled visits, and patrons can make book requests ahead of time. There has been agood and growing turnout. Bookmobile librarians get to know the patrons’ interests.

Mobile Learning Lab

The Mobile Learning Lab comes to the Highland Center once a week to offer computer training toneighborhood residents. The lab is not funded by Weed and Seed, but Weed and Seed asked it toinclude the target area on its route and publicizes the lab’s program to neighborhood residents. Thereare 10 computers in the van, with computer-assisted learning and an instructor. Some students worktoward their GED, and others learn software packages for job preparation. Classes are well attended,with up to 10 students per visit. The average student attends the free lessons for 4 to 6 months.

Shrevecorps

Part of the national Americorps youth service program, Shrevecorps has a youth corps, ages 16 to 24,who volunteer their services to the community. Shrevecorps has partnered with Weed and Seed onmany projects, providing youth volunteers for neighborhood cleanups and tutoring children at theYEP afterschool program.


Habitat for Humanity

Weed and Seed helped Habitat for Humanity reach potential homeowners. Many qualified people didnot know about the program, and it was difficult for Habitat to find qualified applicants. Weed andSeed staff helped with outreach in the target area, and Habitat has already served three familiesreferred by Weed and Seed.

Shreveport Symphony Orchestra

At Weed and Seed’s request, the orchestra has given free concerts in the target area at the HighlandCenter. Weed and Seed drew several hundred children and senior citizens to the special concerts. Theseed coordinator also worked on the orchestra’s outreach committee. The symphony is looking to dosimilar outreach in other areas.

Provider comments on Weed and Seed

Program partners emphasized how Weed and Seed increased coordination and communications linksamong neighborhood groups and other agencies. Weed and Seed brings more programs under oneroof and helps programs reach an underserved area of Shreveport. One partner emphasized theimportance of leadership in the community and the role played by Weed and Seed. It was noted thatWeed and Seed also promotes awareness of community programs and resources through suchvehicles as its monthly calendar of events. The director of Shrevecorps said, “Establishingpartnerships is the key to Weed and Seed—cooperation on projects and working together to bring thecommunity together. [You] can touch more people as a group of organizations than as a single entity.That’s very, very important.”

Some of the partners who were funded by Weed and Seed, including Youth Enrichment Plus, SRCKids Club, and NLT indicated Weed and Seed support will help secure other grants because of theirproven program successes under the Weed and Seed grant, as well as the Weed and Seed association.

The NLT director felt Weed and Seed enhanced her organization’s capacity, leading to a tightening ofthe way the organization was run. The administrators used the site sponsored by Weed and Seed as apilot program, combining track and field and literacy programs at one site. The NLT director believesthe experience her organization gained during the Weed and Seed grant process also put it in a goodposition to request and receive other Federal funding.

The only negative aspect noted by one provider was because the money was administered by the city,there were a number of “hoops to jump through” to receive it.


5.8 Concluding Observations

Stakeholders and community leaders generally say the target areas have improved as a result of Weedand Seed. They credit the program with focusing attention on the target communities andcoordinating both policing and seeding responses. They cite:

1. Improved neighborhood appearance due to code enforcement and neighborhoodcleanups.

2. Reduced crime and drug dealing.

3. Increased availability of direct Weed and Seed-funded services and other servicesbrought into the target area.

4. Economic revitalization in the form of lower vacancy rates and increased residentialconstruction, residential rehabilitation, and business activity.

Perhaps the clearest lesson from Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program is that a city can influence itsmost crime- and drug-ridden neighborhoods with a relatively modest investment in policing andseeding services. Apparently, the permanent assignment of just a few police officers and a codeenforcement officer to the target communities in late 1994, and then the introduction of severalyouth-oriented programs starting in 1995 and 1996, has had an observable impact on crime, disorder,and economic vitality in the area. The Weed and Seed program and staff were the “glue” that heldthese initiatives together, got them publicized, obtained citizen input and participation, and helpedcoordinate them with other activities in the target communities.

Another lesson relates to prosecution. On one hand, Shreveport achieved a degree of success withoutmuch cooperation or support from either Federal or local prosecution. This suggests weeding andcommunity policing activities can have their own independent effects apart from any deterrence orincapacitation achieved through prosecution and adjudication of arrestees. At the same time,Shreveport’s experience clearly demonstrates prosecutorial participation in Weed and Seed cannot betaken for granted. Other cities are likely to be in the same situation as Shreveport regarding Federalprosecutions—the types of cases made by Weed and Seed officers rarely meet Federal criteria(especially those governing quantities of drugs or firearms seized) and a shortage of Federal judgesand prosecutors therefore makes Federal prosecution unlikely. Similarly, local prosecutors in othercities may feel, as the district attorney does in Shreveport, that it is either inappropriate or politicallyunwise to allocate disproportionate resources to one targeted area, thus reducing the attention given toother areas. In Shreveport’s case, at least, it is possible this problem might have been overcome ifgrant funds had been allocated for extra local prosecution. In any event, more thorough and focusedprosecution might have increased the impact of Weed and Seed in the target communities.

Another lesson verified in Shreveport is the advantage of targeting communities that already haveactive community-based organizations. For the most part, Weed and Seed in Shreveport did not haveto start out by organizing the community but rather had to secure the participation of existingorganizations and associations. These groups often have competing agendas and interests, of course,so that working with them can be frustrating and challenging. Their existence makes the identification


of key stakeholders easier and makes timely implementation of community-based services moreprobable.

The Shreveport case also demonstrates hat a police department can succeed as a Weed and Seed grantrecipient. Although it continues to feel like a major stretch for police department officials, seeding hasbecome a full partner in Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program and is developing well. Nonpoliceprogram directors have been appointed twice in Shreveport, both have performed poorly, and eachtime the police department has stepped in and fulfilled the program director’s responsibilities. Theprogram has enjoyed stability and full implementation when the police department has been at thehelm. Internally, the police department’s management also lent authority to the seeding side,facilitating coordination of weeding with seeding.

Finally, Shreveport’s program highlights the value of full-time, dedicated Weed and Seed staff. Muchof the success of Shreveport’s effort has been due to: (1) the presence of a staffed Weed and Seedoffice in the target area, (2) the permanent assignment of a weeding coordinator and several weedingpolice officers to the program (and perhaps to their distinctive uniforms and use of bicycles), and (3)the efforts of the full-time seed coordinator. These program characteristics gave it a degree ofsubstance and presence and a sense of permanence in the target communities that almost certainlycontributed to its successful implementation and apparent impact.

6.0 Effects of Weed and Seed

6.1 Analysis of Crime Data

Incident-level data provided by the Shreveport Police Department was used to analyze the trends incrime rates before and after the implementation of Weed and Seed. In interpreting these data, it isimportant to note any observed changes in crime rates in the target area during this time period mightreflect factors other than Weed and Seed. For instance, changes in crime reporting may cause thereported crime rates to rise or fall independent of any shift in the true crime incidence. Changes in theregional or national economic context may also affect local crime trends. Additionally, an observedreduction in crime for the target area may occur through displacement of crime to adjacent or nearbyareas, where crime rates would rise.

District identifiers in the incident-level crime data were used to identify crime incidents reported inthe Highland-Stoner Hill target area. The rest of the city provides a logical comparison area, to takeaccount of possible changes in local crime reporting, shifts in local economic conditions or othercontextual factors, and the possibility of crime displacement to other areas within the city.

12 It should be noted these crime statistics differ slightly from official Shreveport Police Department figures reported to the FBI; the dataprovided here do not take into account cases determined through further investigation to be unfounded.


Shreveport implemented its weeding program in February 1995. Exhibit 6.1 displays the number ofPart 1 crimes per 1,000 residents in the target area and in the rest of the city from February 1993 toJuly 1997—a period spanning more than 2 years before and after the commencement of Weed andSeed.12

Exhibit 6.1Part 1 Crime Data, Shreveport

Time periodTotal number of

Part 1 crimesAverage Monthly Part 1

crimes per 1,000 residentsPercentage change from

preceding year

Highland-Stoner Hill area

2/93–1/94 2,254 14.8 —

2/94–1/95 2,681 17.6 +18.9

2/95–1/96 2,426 16.0 -9.5

2/96–1/97 2,384 15.7 -1.7

2/97–7/97 (6 months) 1,020 13.4 —

Rest of City

2/93–1/94 20,936 9.5 —

2/94–1/95 22,709 10.2 +8.5

2/95–1/96 20,668 9.3 -9.0

2/96–1/97 21,991 9.9 +6.4

2/97–7/97 (6 months) 9,633 8.7 —

Source: Statistics generated from incident-level crime data provided by the Shreveport Police Department.Note: The Weed and Seed program was implemented in the Highland-Stoner Hill target area beginning

February 1995.

Since the implementation of Weed and Seed, Part 1 crimes have been on a downward trend in thetarget area. In the year prior to Weed and Seed—February 1994 through January 1995—Part 1 crimewas rising in the target area, having increased an average of 18.9 percent from the previous year; inthe rest of the city, Part 1 crime increased 8.5 percent during the same period.

After the first year of Weed and Seed—February 1995 through January 1996—Part 1 crimes droppedby an average of 9.5 percent in the target area and an average of 9 percent in the rest of the city. In thesecond year of the program, the Weed and Seed target area experienced a further decline of 1.7percent over the prior year, while the rest of the city experienced a 6.4 percent increase in crime.

Exhibit 6.2 displays monthly Part 1 crime rates per 1,000 residents in the target area and the rest ofthe city. The bold fitted curve expresses the trends over the entire period analyzed (February1993–July 1997). The data again suggest a decline and stabilization of Part 1crime in the target areafollowing the commencement of Weed and Seed, indicating an overall trend toward greaterconvergence in crime levels between the target area and the rest of the city.


6.2 Survey of Community Residents

Survey methods used in 1995 and 1997

In each of the eight sites participating in the national evaluation, a survey of target area residents wasconducted at two separate time intervals. During March through July 1995, the Institute for SocialAnalysis conducted 1,531 interviews among the eight sites. In December 1997 through January 1998,Abt Associates conducted a total of 1,995 interviews with a separate group of residents in the sameeight target areas. In the following material, we refer to these data collection efforts as the 1995 and1997 surveys.

General survey design and operations

The objective of the survey data collection and analysis was to measure the changes in citizens’awareness of the Weed and Seed program and their opinions about police activity, crime, publicsafety, and the general quality of life in their neighborhoods. In the interest of comparing the findingsobtained from the two surveys, the 1997 survey was designed with the following features:

• For each site, the geographical boundaries of the survey area were the same in 1995and 1997.

• The verbatim wording of questions from the 1995 survey was retained in 1997. Forselected items, additional response categories were added in 1997 to provide a morecomplete range of possible responses. For these items, care was taken in the analysis to

Exhibit 6.2

13 For example, in questions on “how good a job are the police doing” in different aspects of law enforcement, the 1995 survey allowedthe respondent to indicate “a very good job, a good job, a fair job, or a poor job.” The 1997 survey allowed the respondent to alsoindicate “a very poor job.” The findings presented have aggregated the “poor job” and “very poor job” responses for 1997 beforecomparing the pattern of responses with 1995.


aggregate responses in ways that would preserve the comparability of the findings in1995 and 1997.13

There were also some notable differences in the methods used in the two surveys, as follows:

• The 1995 survey consisted of inperson interviews, based on city-provided address lists.The 1997 interviews were conducted by telephone, based on listed telephone numbersfor residential addresses within the survey area.

• The 1995 survey consisted of 83 substantive items. The 1997 survey included only asubset of these, 31 substantive items. (For both surveys, the count excludes itemsrelated to respondent demographic characteristics and other basic interview data.) The1995 interviews required 30 to 40 minutes. The 1997 interviews typically lasted 12 to15 minutes.

The decision to proceed in 1997 with telephone interviewing and a shortened instrument was basedon the difficulties experienced in 1995 in completing the targeted number of 400 interviews per site.In none of the sites was this target reached. The 1997 survey design called for 300 completedinterviews per site. In 6 of the 8 sites, all but Hartford and Manatee, 300 or more interviews werecompleted.

Selected survey findings are listed below; please see the corresponding exhibits for detailedinformation, including the survey questions, response patterns, and statistical significance.

Demographic characteristics of survey respondents (Exhibit 6.3)

• In 1997, survey respondents were older and disproportionately female or black,compared with 1995 respondents. The average age in 1997 was 49, an increase from 42years old in 1995.

• Generally, survey respondents lived in the target area for more than 2 years.

• Incidence of unemployment decreased among respondents, from 10 percent in 1995 to4 percent in 1997.

• Survey respondent households typically consisted of 1 or 2 adults with an average of0.7 and 0.9 children in 1997 and 1995, respectively. In 1997, the racial composition ofrespondents was 58 percent white and 35 percent black and, in 1995, 73 percent white,23 percent black.

Perceptions of the neighborhood (Exhibit 6.4)


• In general, the level of neighborhood satisfaction among respondents had not increasedsignificantly in the 2 years since the 1995 survey, particularly in perceptions of crimeas being a significant problem.

• Although perceptions of violent crime and gang activity as a “big problem” decreasedslightly, respondent concerns of illegal activity in the neighborhood, such as drug use,increased.

• Nonetheless, in 1997, 17 percent more of respondents said the neighborhood hadbecome a better place to live in the past 2 years.

Victimization (Exhibit 6.5)

• Although incidences of victimization remained about the same across survey years, 5percent fewer people reported having something stolen (from themselves or from afamily member) by force or threat of force.

Police response (Exhibit 6.6)

• Fifteen percent more of respondents in 1997 felt the police were doing a “very goodjob” in “controlling the street sale and use of illegal drugs;” the differences between theresponses to the remaining survey questions in this section were insignificant. Therewas no change in perceptions of police visibility or police responsiveness tocommunity concerns. (It should be noted that perceptions of police responsivenesswere already high in 1995.)

Community involvement (Exhibit 6.7)

• In general, the target area has seen a spike in community involvement. Reportedparticipation in neighborhood watch programs increased 17 percent from 1995 levels,and participation in neighborhood cleanup projects increased by 9 percent in 1997.

Perceptions of social services and other programs (Exhibit 6.8)

• Perhaps the best indication of seeding success in Shreveport was the high respondentsatisfaction with neighborhood social services and economic opportunities. Thoseclaiming to be “very satisfied” were at least 10 percent more in 1997 in each of thefollowing city services: “the availability of sports, recreation, and other programs foryouths” (8 percent in 1995 versus 21 percent in 1997); “the availability of drugtreatment services” (9 percent in 1995 versus 22 percent in 1997); and “the availabilityof job opportunities” (5 percent in 1995 versus 17 percent in 1997).

Perceptions of the Weed and Seed program (Exhibit 6.9)

• The percentage of respondents recognizing the Weed and Seed program by nameincreased from 49 percent in 1995 to 85 percent in 1997. Although perceived policepresence was relatively unchanged since 1995, there was wide recognition of the“bicycle police patrol,” with a full 83 percent of respondents aware of its existence in


1997. Sixty-two percent of 1997 respondents were aware that police officers areavailable to work with neighborhood crime watch groups, and 37 percent knew of“police help with neighborhood cleanup efforts.” More than half of all 1997respondents were aware of the “afterschool educational programs for children throughYouth Enrichment Plus, Shreveport Community Renewal Kids Club, and the SalvationArmy” (53 percent), and “public neighborhood meetings hosted by the Weed and Seedprogram” (56 percent).

General observations on the survey findings

While survey findings do not show much change in perceptions of safety, there were improvements inperceptions of other aspects of neighborhood life, including better police control of street sales anduse of illegal drugs; strong increase in satisfaction with programs available in the neighborhood,including youth programs; and an increase in participation in community programs, such asneighborhood watches and cleanups. While reported levels of neighborhood satisfaction did notchange, 17 percent more respondents perceived improvement in quality of life over the 2-year period.

In interpreting the survey findings, it would be incorrect to attribute the observed changes solely toWeed and Seed. The measured changes may, in part, be the result of the different survey methodsused in 1995 and 1997. It is also important to remember that Weed and Seed was first implemented inShreveport several months prior to the first survey. Finally, although the observed changes inresidents’ attitudes may indeed have resulted from Weed and Seed and various community changesset in motion by the program, other factors, such as the national economy, may also have influencedchanges.


Exhibit 6.3: Demographic Characteristics of Survey RespondentsShreveport

1995 Surveya 1997 Surveya

Age of respondent (in years) n = 104 n = 303

18–29 31 (30%) 53 (18%)

30–39 24 (23%) 42 (14%)

40–49 16 (15%) 68 (22%)

50–59 5 (5%) 35 (12%)

60 or older 25 (24%) 99 (33%)

Other 3 (3%) 6 (2%)

Total 100% 100%

Mean Value (in years) 42.1 48.9

Employment status n = 104b n =303b

Working full time 36 129

Working part time 6 45

Unemployed and looking forwork

10 13

Retired or otherwise notlooking for work

15 92

Homemaker 13 178

Disabled 3 52

Full-time student 4 23

Part-time student 0 18

Other 37 22

Refused 0 1

Don’t know 0 1

Mean Value 3.1 2.5




Number of people in householdless than 18 years old

n =104 n =303

0 53 (52%) 205 (68%)

1–2 37 (36%) 66 (22%)

3 or more 12 (12%) 32 (11%)

Total 100% 100%

Mean Value 1.0 0.7

Number of people in householdmore than 18 years old

n =104 n =303

0 6 (6%) 3 (1%)

1–2 82 (79%) 247 (82%)

3 or more 16 (15%) 53 (18%)

Total 100% 100%

Mean Value 1.9 1.8

Ethnic identity n =104 n =303

Black 24 (23%) 106 (35%)

White 76 (73%) 177 (58%)

Hispanic 0 (0%) 1 (<1%)

Asian/Pacific Islander 1 (1%) 4 (1%)

American Indian 0 (0%) 2 (<1%)

Something else 0 (0%) 6 (2%)

Refused 2 (2%) 5 (2%)

Don’t know 0 (0%) 2 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%

Mean Value 1.8 1.7




Gender n =104 n =303

Male 45 (43%) 116 (38%)

Female 58 (56%) 186 (61%)

Other 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%

Mean Value 1.6 1.6

a Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.b Respondents were allowed to make more than one selection.


Exhibit 6.4: Perceptions of the NeighborhoodShreveport

1995 Surveya 1997 Surveya Chi Square Statisticb

In general, how satisfied areyou with this neighborhood asa place to live?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Very satisfied 46 (44%) 126 (42%)

Somewhat satisfied 41 (39%) 131 (43%)

Somewhat dissatisfied 10 (10%) 28 (9%)

Very dissatisfied 6 (6%) 16 (5%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 1(<1%)

Total 100% 100%

In general, how safe do youfeel out alone in thisneighborhood during the day?Do you feel...

n =104 n = 303 x2 = ***

Very safe 61 (59%) 128 (42%)

Somewhat safe 31 (30%) 144 (48%)

Somewhat unsafe 7 (7%) 22 (7%)

Very unsafe 4 (4%) 7 (2%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 2 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




In general, how safe do youfeel out alone in thisneighborhood after dark? Doyou feel...

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Very safe 21 (20%) 44 (15%)

Somewhat safe 35 (34%) 107 (35%)

Somewhat unsafe 19 (18%) 76 (25%)

Very unsafe 16 (15%) 36 (12%)

Don’t go out at night 12 (12%) 39 (13%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

In general, in the past 2 years,would you say thisneighborhood has become abetter place to live, a worseplace to live, or stayed aboutthe same?

n =104 n =303 x2***

Better 21 (20%) 113 (37%)

Worse 22 (21%) 43 (14%)

About the same 41 (39%) 143 (47%)

Did not live here 2 years ago 20 (19%) 3 (1%)

Don’t know 0 (0%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Do you think drug dealers onthe streets, or in other publicplaces, are a big problem,small problem, or no problemin this neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 18 (17%) 50 (17%)

Small problem 16 (15%) 100 (33%)

No problem 56 (54%) 132 (44%)

Don’t know 14 (14%) 21 (7%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Do you think drug sales out ofhomes or apartments are a bigproblem, small problem, or noproblem in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 18 (17%) 63 (21%)

Small problem 8 (8%) 90 (30%)

No problem 50 (48%) 28 (27%)

Don’t know 28 (27%) 51 (17%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Do you think burglary andother property crimes are abig problem, small problem,or no problem in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 23 (22%) 72 (24%)

Small problem 29 (28%) 135 (45%)

No problem 49 (47%) 84 (28%)

Don’t know 3 (3%) 12 (4%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Do you think robbery andother street crimes are a bigproblem, small problem, or noproblem in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 17 (16%) 51 (17%)

Small problem 21 (20%) 130 (43%)

No problem 62 (60%) 111 (37%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 11 (4%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Do you think violent crimes,such as shootings, assault, andso forth, are a big problem,small problem, or no problemin this neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 22 (21%) 56 (19%)

Small problem 16 (15%) 128 (42%)

No problem 60 (58%) 111 (37%)

Don’t know 6 (6%) 8 (3%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Do you think gang activity is abig problem, small problem,or no problem in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 16 (15%) 40 (13%)

Small problem 15 (14%) 99 (33%)

No problem 58 (56%) 139 (46%)

Don’t know 15 (14%) 25 (8%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Do you think drug use is a bigproblem, small problem, or noproblem in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Big problem 18 (17%) 77 (25%)

Small problem 11 (11%) 101 (33%)

No problem 55 (53%) 88 (29%)

Don’t know 20 (19%) 35 (12%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

a Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.b Significance of differences between 1995 and 1997 in the distribution of responses for

each survey question.*** Statistically significant at 1-percent level** Statistically significant at 5-percent level* Statistically significant at 10-percent leveln.s. Not statistically significant


Exhibit 6.5: VictimizationShreveport


In the past 2 years, hasanyone broken into yourhome, garage, or anotherbuilding on your property inthis neighborhood to stealsomething?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 29 (28%) 78 (26%)

No 71 (68%) 225 (74%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 0 (0%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

In the past 2 years, hasanyone stolen something fromyou or a member of yourfamily by force or by threat offorce in this neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = *

Yes 10 (10%) 14 (5%)

No 90 (87%) 288 (95%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Exhibit 6.5: VictimizationShreveport



Other than the incidentsalready mentioned, in the past2 years, have you or a memberof your family been beaten up,attacked, or hit withsomething such as a rock orbottle in this neighborhood?

n = 104 n = 303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 4 (4%) 11 (4%)

No 98 (94%) 291 (96%)

Don’t know 2 (2%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Other than the incidentsalready mentioned, in the past2 years, have you or a memberof your family been knifed,shot at, or attacked with someother weapon by anyone at allin this neighborhood to stealsomething?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 5 (5%) 6 (2%)

No 97 (93%) 295 (97%)

Don’t know 2 (2%) 2 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Exhibit 6.6: Police ResponseShreveport

1995 Surveya 1997 Surveya Chi SquareStatisticb

In general, how good a jobare the police doing to keeporder on the streets andsidewalks in thisneighborhood? Would yousay they are doing a…

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Very good job 26 (25%) 110 (36%)

Good job 51 (49%) 126 (42%)

Fair job 23 (22%) 52 (17%)

Poor job 3 (3%) 9 (3%)

Very poor job Not a responsecategory

3 (1%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 3 (1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

How good a job are thepolice doing in controllingthe street sale and use ofillegal drugs in thisneighborhood these days?Would you say they are doinga…

n =104 n =303 x2 = **

Very good job 17 (16%) 94 (31%)

Good job 37 (36%) 110 (36%)

Fair job 21 (20%) 43 (14%)

Poor job 10 (10%) 15 (5%)

Very poor job Not a response category 10 (3%)

Don’t know 19 (18%) 31 (10%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




During the past month, haveyou seen a police car drivingthrough your neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 98 (94%) 280 (92%)

No 5 (5%) 21 (7%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 2 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

During the past month, haveyou seen a police officerwalking around or standingon patrol in theneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 20 (19%) 71 (23%)

No 83 (80%) 230 (76%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 1 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%

During the past month, haveyou seen a police officerpatrolling in the back alleysor in the back of buildings inyour neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 39 (38%) 107 (35%)

No 64 (62%) 191 (63%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 5 (2%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




During the past month, haveyou seen a police officerchatting/having a friendlyconversation with people inthe neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 35 (34%) 117 (39%)

No 68 (65%) 185 (61%)

Don’t know 1 (1%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

In general, how responsiveare the police in thisneighborhood to communityconcerns? Are they...

n =104 n =303 x2 = n.s.

Very responsive 56 (54%) 166 (55%)

Somewhat responsive 36 (35%) 99 (33%)

Somewhat unresponsive 3 (3%) 10 (3%)

Very unresponsive 5 (5%) 7 (2%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 19 (6%)

Refused 0 (0%) 2 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%




Exhibit 6.7: Community Involvement Shreveport


During the past 2 years, haveyou attended or participatedin an antidrug rally, vigil, ormarch in this neighborhood?

n =104 n = 303 x2 = n.s.

Yes 4 (4%) 12 (4%)

No 96 (92%) 291 (96%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 0 (0%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

During the past 2 years, haveyou attended or participatedin a citizen patrol in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = **

Yes 2 (2%) 26 (9%)

No 98 (94%) 276 (91%)

Don’t know 4 (4%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

During the past 2 years, haveyou attended or participatedin a neighborhood watchprogram in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Yes 18 (17%) 103 (34%)

No 83 (80%) 199 (66%)

Don’t know 3 (3%) 1 (<1%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

Exhibit 6.7: Community Involvement Shreveport



During the past 2 years, haveyou attended or participatedin a neighborhood cleanupproject in this neighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = *

Yes 15 (14%) 71 (23%)

No 86 (83%) 232 (77%)

Don’t know 3 (3%) 0 (0%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%




Exhibit 6.8: Perceptions of Social Services and Other ProgramsShreveport


In general, how satisfied areyou with the availability ofsports, recreation, and otherprograms for youths in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***

Very satisfied 8 (8%) 62 (21%)




Don’t know 43 (41%) 47 (16%)

Refused 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 100% 100%

In general, how satisfied areyou with the availability ofdrug treatment services in thisneighborhood?

n =104 n =303 x2 = ***





Don’t know 56 (54%) 102 (34%)

Refused 0 (0%) 2 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%

Exhibit 6.8: Perceptions of Social Services and Other ProgramsShreveport



In general, how satisfied areyou with the availability of jobopportunities in thisneighborhood?

n = 104 n =303 x2 = ***





Don’t know 37 (36%) 67 (22%)

Refused 0 (0%) 1 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%




Exhibit 6.9: Perceptions of the Weed and Seed ProgramShreveport


Have you heard of aprogram called the Weedand Seed program?

n=104 n = 303 x2 = ***

Yes 51 (49%) 256 (85%)

No 51 (49%) 46 (15%)

Don’t Know 2 (2%) 1 (<1%)

Total 100% 100%

1997 Respondents only a

Are you aware thefollowing programs areavailable in thisneighborhood? Yes No

Don’tknow

n = 303

Total

Bicycle police patrol 251 (83%) 52 (17%) 0 (0%) 100%

Police officers who workwith the neighborhoodwatch group

189 (62%) 108 (36%) 6 (2%) 100%

Police help withneighborhood cleanupefforts

113 (37%) 186 (61%) 4 (1%) 100%

Afterschool educationalprograms for childrenthrough Youth EnrichmentPlus, ShreveportCommunity Renewal KidsClub, and Salvation Army.

160 (53%) 138 (46%) 4 (1%) 100%

Public neighborhoodmeetings hosted by theWeed and Seed Program.

170 (56%) 130 (43%) 3 (1%) 100%




6.3 Seeding Program Participant Interviews

To learn the perspective of individuals in the community who were direct beneficiaries of seedingprograms, group interviews were conducted with nearly 30 participants of four seeding programs.Programs included Youth Enrichment Plus programs at two local schools, the Shreveport CommunityRenewal Kids Club, and the Dillard-Robinson Neighborhood Watch Group. In addition, the evaluatorattended one of the monthly open neighborhood meetings hosted by Weed and Seed and addressedquestions from an audience of approximately 20 people. Their comments are included at the end ofthis section.

It is important to note the seeding program participant interviews are not intended to represent allparticipants; interviewees were selected at the discretion of program managers, based on theiravailability. Nonetheless, participants’ perceptions, described below, illustrate the types of benefitsthe programs confer and convey the participants’ feelings about their experiences.

In general, participants reported the following types of benefits from program participation:

• Afterschool programs. Participants felt these programs improved their schoolperformance, broadly enhanced their education, enhanced their social development andsocial support through constructive activities with peers and teachers, and provided adultsupervision.

• Neighborhood Watch. Participants reported the watch program increased their feelingsof safety and sense of control over their environment, aided in crime prevention, andimproved neighborhood appearance. Weed and Seed staff helped guide their efforts andenabled them to receive increased support from the police department and city.

• Weed and Seed monthly neighborhood meeting attendees. Attendees generallyreported that Weed and Seed increased police vigilance, support, and crime solving inproblem areas; improved neighborhood appearance; and increased communicationbetween the police and residents. They felt that Weed and Seed staff, including thebicycle patrol, increased police availability and support for resolving neighborhoodissues. While residents felt safer with Weed and Seed, they expressed concern that theneighborhood may revert back to the higher crime levels when Weed and Seed ends.

Below is a detailed summary of the participant interviews.

Youth Enrichment Plus (YEP), Barret Elementary School

Eight third-graders took part in the Youth Enrichment Plus (YEP) participant interviews at BarretElementary School. Weed and Seed provides the funding so there is no charge to these students whootherwise could not afford to participate.

The children were very eager to talk about the activities at YEP. They described a variety ofactivities, including homework assistance, outside play, reading, drawing, singing, and eating snacks.Each day they do their homework before they are allowed to go outside or play; they said theteachers, Ms. J. and Ms. M., help them with their homework. The children expressed great


enthusiasm for all the activities, including doing the homework. One girl said, “Your teachers loveyou.” Another said she only missed YEP once because of a high fever.

When asked what was most important to them about the program, most participants said thehomework assistance. The children felt YEP helped their performance in school, including gettingbetter grades. One child said, “[They] make sure you do your homework; if you don’t, you can get introuble. At home, my mama, she don’t never help me.” The children seemed pleased with having thediscipline and structure, as well as the comradery. One liked having “someplace good to go.” Inaddition to homework, they enjoyed the play activities and occasional field trips, including outings tothe Red River, a fire station, and an ambulance. It was also clear they felt happy and secure at theprogram; as one student said, “Miss J. [our teacher] loves us.”

When asked what they would do if they didn’t come to this afterschool program, the children insistedthey would find a way to come; they seemed unwilling to entertain the idea of not coming. As onegirl said, “You can get mad [if there’s no spot for you]. [You] wait your turn to come to the programand, if Ms. J. says your name, then you get to come.” Another said, “You do your homework and waittill someone else drops out. They’ll call my mom when there’s a space.” One girl said, “If you are athome, your sister won’t never help you. She says I got my own homework to do.”

When asked why they joined the program, some children said they came because no one is home afterschool. Another child thought he would be bored at home; he had lots of friends in the afterschoolprogram. One child said the teacher recommended it to her, and another child’s mother suggested it.

When asked how their friends or relatives would describe how the program benefits them, thestudents indicated the program is good for their grades, helps people do their work, and helps theirfamilies. Asked if there is enough to do in the neighborhood, those who replied said no. It was clearthese teachers and this program filled an important role in the students’ lives.

None of the students had any suggestions on how to change the program or could describe anythingthey didn’t like.

Youth Enrichment Plus at Creswell Elementary School

Ten third-graders attended this participant interview. Some of the students came to the program everyday while others came 2 days per week.

The reaction of the Creswell Elementary School students was similar to that of the Barret children.They described similar activities, including homework assistance, getting treats, writing exercises,drawing, reading, and going outside. They were highly enthusiastic about the activities, includingdoing homework, which was included among the favorite activities. As one boy said, “I like doingeverything at YEP.…Because my Mom says, whatever you do…you can learn from that…. I try tolisten as much as I can so when I grow up, I’ll know as much as I need to know.” When asked howYEP affects their families, they said it helps them do their homework and do better in school. Onechild said, “I like doing work—I like doing everything.”

When asked why they come, students said to learn and eat snacks. If they didn’t come to YEP, theysaid they would probably watch TV, sit around the house, or sleep. When asked whose idea it was to


join, one girl said, “My idea…Bobby told me it seemed exciting…. He blurted it out even. I told mymom as soon as I got home.” In another case, the teacher recommended it to the student.

As with the other YEP program, none of the children could think of anything they did not like aboutit or would change.

Asked what they would tell others about the program, one student said, “If I were you, I would cometo this program because we learn lots of stuff. We come every day and we have snacks...and we haveso much fun.”

Shreveport Community Renewal Kids Club

The Kids Club offers afterschool and weekend enrichment activities for elementary school-agechildren. Activities are based at the youth leader’s home, located in the neighborhood, and the youthleader is accessible to the children 24 hours a day.

Twelve students, from grades two to six, were interviewed as a group. As with the other groups, thesestudents were also highly enthusiastic about their activities. They said they have fun, do homework,play games, read Bible stories together, and have Service Saturdays and Super Saturdays. Moststudents come on 2 or 3 weekdays after school and participate in special activities every otherSaturday. The children do community volunteer work, such as projects with the children at Shriner’sHospital or collecting canned goods, on Service Saturdays. On Super Saturdays, they take field trips,such as going fishing or visiting historic sites. The program also includes summer activities.

When asked what they like best, the children said seeing their friends, having something to do, andgetting help with their homework. Some children said there wasn’t much to do at home, or theirparents work. They also come to have fun and play games. They enjoy the reward of the SuperSaturday outings for doing good work and volunteer service. They said they also liked doingvolunteer work, such as helping the children at the hospital. When asked what they learn from ServiceSaturday, many children replied, “responsibility.” They said they learn by helping.

Neighborhood watch group

Seven members of the Robinson-Dillard Neighborhood Watch Group attended the monthly meetingand participated in the group interview afterward. Most of the participants have lived in theneighborhood for many years; one woman was a business owner in the neighborhood. The Watch wasfounded 1 year ago by a resident who has lived in the area for more than 30 years. She was influentialin getting other neighbors to join.

When the watch first started, the police department helped participants organize themsleves; later,some of the Weed and Seed bicycle policemen came. Residents said the police encouraged watches,and the residents decided that because they are responsible for their own neighborhood, it would begood to know who their neighbors were. “[That way] we could say [to a stranger], you don’t belongin this neighborhood, and we’re going to keep an eye on you.” The residents wanted to feel secureand get guidelines from the police department on what to look for and how to protect their homes.They wanted to be proactive in prevention because crime was increasing in the surrounding areas.


The group meets at least once a month to see if there are problems in the neighborhood, and they holdblock parties at least twice a year. They keep each other informed of what is happening in theneighborhood. They watch each other’s houses and have a list of everyone’s work, home, andalternate phone numbers so people can be reached if there is a problem at their house. If somethingappears wrong, residents call the police and try to reach the owner. As one person said, “[There’s] nota whole lot of us but, for a little group, I think we do a lot.”

The business owner, who has a printing press, prints a notice for the monthly meetings. They haveongoing neighborhood problems that are a subject at every meeting. In addition to reacting to specificneighborhood problems, they instigate neighborhood cleanups and address needed services, such aslighting.

Perceived effects

The group feels they are slowly making an impact in the neighborhood. They said it takes persistenceand Weed and Seed is there to help them. Some of the problem neighbors are conforming better; theydo not participate but are less troublesome. “[We] make a point to meet every month even if thingsare quiet so problem neighbors see we’re still organized. When you accept the status quo, then prettysoon it cycles back around to the bad.” They noted the legal system is slow to get rid of badneighbors. They have succeeded in having empty houses torn down. Most importantly, they feel safernow, and they know their neighbors now so it is easier to notice something strange.

The business owner also said she has seen improvements. She had been nervous about moving backinto the area because there were more problems in the Highland section than when she left. Now, withthe watch, she feels much more comfortable. “Highland had a bad reputation for crime. I think that’schanging.”

The biggest challenge for the group has been controlling people handling illegal narcotics on thestreet. There is a building on the block where drug dealers live, but the police have not yet hadsuccess in catching them with the drugs. The participants felt the dealers would eventually get caughtbecause they were watching them.

Role of Weed and Seed in the neighborhood watch

Weed and Seed has been involved with their neighborhood watch since the beginning, with a Weedand Seed staff member usually attending their meetings and offering advice. “Without them [the seedcoordinator and police officer], we wouldn’t have our neighborhood to the point we have it now.”With Weed and Seed, they have a liaison who knows who to call in the city and community;sometimes the seed coordinator handles problems for them directly for faster resolution.They feltWeed and Seed had worked hard for them and helped to cut through red tape. With Weed and Seed,they feel they have someone to call for help and know they will be heard—not just someone whotakes a message and does not respond. They are more inclined to call when they know someonepersonally and have contacts at the neighborhood level.

One woman said that, the year before, she had horrible neighbors who left trash, including abandonedcars, everywhere in their yard. She called Weed and Seed and the seed coordinator took a picture ofthe house and wrote the landlord in Florida. The problem was fixed.


Participants had heard of Weed and Seed through the media. There had been some initial negativemedia coverage. Their experience, through the Watch, has been positive, and they wanted to givetheir support to the program and the seed coordinator for her efforts. Participants in the Watch seemore police officers around now who are more aware of the problems and more attached to thecommunity. They said Weed and Seed makes them feel safer.

Weed and Seed monthly neighborhood meeting

The Weed and Seed monthly neighborhood meeting took place in the chapel at the Highland Center.A police officer talked about truancy, and an attorney from the Shreveport court talked about the teencourt and juvenile justice program. Approximately 20 people attended. Following the meeting, theevaluator asked the group about their impressions of Weed and Seed.

How attendees found out about Weed and Seed

Attendees seemed familiar with the Weed and Seed goals and felt there was high awareness of theprogram. Many attendees had seen the Weed patrol. One resident had high crime on his block andhad called Weed and Seed for help, and another had called Weed and Seed to report suspiciousactivity. Several residents learned about Weed and Seed through the schools.

Perceived benefits

Attendees felt strongly the Weed and Seed outreach was helpful and communication with the police isbetter. They felt more comfortable calling and getting a response. They felt Weed and Seed hadimproved perceptions of safety.

One man said his block used to have a severe drug and crime problem, but he turned the block aroundby working closely with Weed and Seed. The drug dealers and burglars are now gone from his street.He kept calling the lieutenant who is the weed coordinator. They proceeded carefully to build a solidcase against the suspects, who had already served time in jail. The citizen was unable to get hisneighbors to participate but succeeded, nonetheless, with the help of Weed and Seed. Now he feelssafe to go out again. He said the codes are enforced now, too.

An 80-year-old woman in the audience said Weed and Seed has cleared vacant lots, old cars, andtrash. Her neighborhood is now kept clean.

One attendee noted the economy was better and crime had decreased. It was pointed out that Weedand Seed helped improve the perception of crime so people were willing to invest in the communityagain. Before, Highland had a higher vacancy rate. A member of a local neighborhood watch gavecredit to Weed and Seed for definite improvement in the neighborhood.

Concerns

Comments were made that Weed and Seed provides good police presence in the daytime, but it’sgone in the evening. People want more protection at night. The resident manager of the publichousing project expressed a desire for more services at the project because of her concern aboutgangs. (Some attendees commented that in years past the housing project had worse crime and no onewanted to live in this area; there were drive-by shootings, rapes, and robberies.) Another resident

14 A subcommittee of the steering committee is appealing to the mayor’s office and elected officials to provide local funding afterFederal funding ends.


manager of a low-income project said he would like more police presence to inhibit gang members,drug dealers, and loitering. He expressed concern that many offenders who went to jail quicklyreturned to the streets.

Another attendee recommended residents call in more often to report suspicious activity or someonenot belonging on their street. “You got to live there...people living there have to do somethingthemselves.” The resident managers said loitering is a low priority for the police. The resident whohad been helped by Weed and Seed said, “Give them time, and it will work...you need to keepcalling.”

Concern was expressed that when Weed and Seed ends, crime will return.

7.0 Future Directions and Degree ofInstitutionalization

Due to its delayed start in program implementation, Shreveport’s Weed and Seed program willcontinue through FY 1998. The site applied for designation as a Weed and Seed training site.

It is unclear which program elements may remain after Federal Weed and Seed funding ends or whatthe long-term institutional effects may be.14 Two incremental gains from Weed and Seed will likelycontinue after funding ends: strengthened community capacity to address problems and to coordinatesolutions and increased citizen involvement.

Weed and Seed program elements are likely to continue include:

• Increased citizen involvement in law enforcement, with more citizens active inneighborhood watch programs, increased cooperation with the police, and strengthenedchannels of communication between citizens and the police. (According to the 1997survey, 85 percent of respondents were aware of Weed and Seed and 56 percent wereaware of the monthly neighborhood meetings hosted by Weed and Seed; participation inneighborhood watches increased from 17 to 34 percent, and 62 percent of respondentswere aware of the availability of police to assist in neighborhood watches.)

• Increased participation of community organizations on a variety of neighborhood issuesand increased coordination of services. Weed and Seed worked closely withneighborhood-based and other nonprofit organizations, contributing to strengthenedorganizational networks and organizational capacity. In the area of neighborhoodrestoration, for example, community organizations, residents, and public resources wereeffectively mobilized for neighborhood cleanups and code enforcement. After Weed andSeed funding ends, there will be no dedicated funding for a full-time code enforcementofficer for the target area, and some of the current levels of vigilance will decline. Sincethe community broadly participated in this effort and has seen results, however, it seemslikely that at least some of these gains would continue; in particular, two neighborhood


organizations worked closely with Weed and Seed on this issue and can maintain someoversight. (The 1997 survey also reflected increased participation in neighborhoodcleanups, from 14 to 23 percent, and increased satisfaction with programs serving theneighborhood.)

• Afterschool/safe haven programs for youths. (In the 1997 survey, 53 percent ofrespondents were aware of these afterschool programs.) Weed and Seed enabled fiveafterschool/safe haven programs to be implemented and, while future fundingarrangements have not yet been determined, the providers expressed confidence in theirability to secure other sources of funding. In addition, the Weed and Seed afterschoolprograms and other related activities (including summer activities and parenting classes)are being developed into a citywide initiative called “Kid Power”; funding is beingsought from the U.S. Department of Education.

• A place for the Weed and Seed strategy to continue. The Shreveport program operatedout of a community center, which afforded Weed and Seed a place in which to bringoutside services to the target area (such as the public health vaccinations, orchestraperformances, and bookmobile visits). Having a place for Weed and Seed provided afocused and convenient way for residents and community organizations to have a voice.The police department now plans to have community centers in each of its four areas andwill keep the current Weed and Seed site as that area’s center.

Program elements with uncertain lasting impact include:

• The Weed bicycle patrol. It is unclear whether the bicycle patrol will continue at currentlevels in the target area after Weed and Seed funding ends. Without a dedicated bicyclepatrol, some of the gains in community relations and crime vigilance would be lost. Thenew mobile police command center can be used for targeted deterrence and enforcement,but the community-building component and proactive strategies will be diminished. (Inthe 1997 survey, 83 percent of respondents were aware of the bicycle patrol.) On theother hand, area residents expect more service and have become more active on their ownbehalf so they may continue to demand police attention for problems. Furthermore, someof the more entrenched criminal activity has been shaken loose, allowing for moreneighborhood restoration.

Program elements that seem least enduring without Weed and Seed funding include:

• Community policing oriented activities. While the police department is committed tohaving a community oriented policing program, with the decrease in staff funding fromWeed and Seed and the end of integration of community policing with seeding,community policing activities will likely suffer in the target area. The Shreveport PoliceDepartment is exploring ways to sustain some of these activities and emulate Weed andSeed in other patrol areas. They are considering reorganizing and consolidating theexisting Community Liaison Officers and Neighborhood Assistance Teams to fulfillweeding and seeding functions in each of the patrol areas under the command of areacaptains.


Beyond the reduction in resources, the key challenges to be addressed in the transition followingWeed and Seed will be coordination and leadership once there are no longer dedicated Weed andSeed staff.

About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,NIJ is authorized to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and both national and international information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to:

● Sponsor special projects, and research and development programs, that will improve and strengthen the criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

● Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving criminal justice.

● Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

● Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if continued or repeated.

● Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizationsto improve criminal justice.

● Carry out research on criminal behavior.

● Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law EnforcementAct of 1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in technology, and a new international focus. Some examples of these new initiatives:

● New research and evaluation are exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, sentencingreforms, and specialized courts such as drug courts.

● Dual-use technologies are being developed to support national defense and local law enforcement needs.

● The causes, treatment, and prevention of violence against women and violence within the family are being investigated in cooperation with several agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

● NIJ’s links with the international community are being strengthened through membership in the United Nations network of criminological institutes; participation in developing the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network;initiation of UNOJUST (U.N. Online Justice Clearinghouse), which electronically links the institutes to the U.N. network; and establishment of an NIJ International Center.

● The NIJ-administered criminal justice information clearinghouse, the world’s largest, has improved its online capability.

● The Institute’s Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program has been expanded and enhanced. Renamed ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring), the program will increase the number of drug-testing sites, and its role as a “platform” for studying drug-related crime will grow.

● NIJ’s new Crime Mapping Research Center will provide training in computer mapping technology, collect andarchive geocoded crime data, and develop analytic software.

● The Institute’s program of intramural research has been expanded and enhanced.

The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, establishes the Institute’s objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the needs of the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and researchers in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice.

National Evaluation of WEED & EED · Executive Office for Weed & Seed. U.S. Department of Justice...

Documents

Transcript of National Evaluation of WEED & EED · Executive Office for Weed & Seed. U.S. Department of Justice...